United Supermarkets Arena · at Texas Tech
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TTU | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-0 | Record | 0-0 |
| 0-0 | ATS | 0-0 |
| 0-0 | O/U | 0-0 |
ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders
Model: projects TTU 93–58 · win probability TTU 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.3
Model edge
—
No market line yet
Public
—
No split yet for this game
The model has not beaten the closing line: with an edge of 3 or more it went 409-367 in 2025-26. Model record
What could decide it: TTU has more of the edges
UIW 0, TTU 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
UIW offense vs TTU defense
Offense 291st of 366 against a defense 12th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
UIW has played the 285th-hardest schedule, TTU the 12th. A record against a soft schedule means less
TTU offense vs UIW defense
Offense 12th of 366 against a defense 280th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: UIW 50.2 and allows 54.5; TTU 56.1 and allows 49.7
Three-pointers
UIW hits 36.1% and allows 34.4%; TTU hits 39.1% and allows 32.1%. Threes are 39.1% and 47.6% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: UIW plays 65.4 a game (335th fastest), TTU 68.2 (222nd). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UIW 32.1%, TTU 33.3%. Defensive: UIW 68.0%, TTU 69.4%
Home court
TTU at home. This season: TTU 0-0 at home, UIW 0-0 away
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UIW 17%, TTU 45%. Transfers in: UIW 5, TTU 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Free throws
Free throw rate: UIW 34.0, TTU 27.7. Allowed: UIW 41.6, TTU 31.4
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UIW 17.1%, TTU 15.8%. Forced: UIW 15.8%, TTU 14.8%
Market
Open → current
Spread
Open—
no open
Now—
Opening line not available
Total
Open—
no open
Now—
Moneyline
—
Pre-game lines only (ESPN, DraftKings first). After tip-off the line shown is the closing line.
Model vs market
| Market | Model | Model edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spread | — | TTU -35.3 | — |
| Total | — | 151.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | UIW 58 · TTU 93.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TTU -20.9 | — |
| 1H total | 70.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | UIW 24.9 · TTU 45.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UIW 0–1 TTUTTU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · UIW 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2021-22 | TTU 84 vs UIW 62 | UIW +29 | UIW W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Incarnate Word
28 games played
Straight up
9-19
32% wins
Against the spread
10-18
36% covers · avg −2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-14
50% overs · avg +1.4 pts vs the total
Game by game: lines, results and totals
Lines, results and totalsCover margin by game · points beyond the lineTotal margin by game · points over or under the total
| Date | Opp | Result | Line | ATS | Total | O/U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3 | @ | L 64-98 | +10.5 | L −23.5 | 147.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 61-69 | +28.5 | W +20.5 | 157.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 87-81 | -9.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 80-91 | +12.5 | W +1.5 | 160.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 71-67 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 145.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 67-74 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 8 | @ | L 83-84 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 15 | @ | L 65-69 | +19.5 | W +15.5 | 143.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 90-66 | -6.5 | W +17.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 79-70 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 73-56 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 67-80 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 51-63 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 46-56 | +7.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | U 102 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 76-74 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 58-80 | -6.5 | L −28.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 71-79 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 136.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 75-81 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 93-106 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | O 199 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 71-69 | +4.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 64-81 | +16.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 62-74 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 83-91 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 16 | vs | L 64-78 | -2.5 | L −16.5 | 154.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 82-73 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 23 | @ | L 49-54 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 103 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 72-60 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 138.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 68-76 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
CSU
L 64-98
−23.5
16
@
IU
L 61-69
+20.5
20
vs
USI
W 87-81
−3.5
22
vs
HPU
L 80-91
+1.5
1
vs
MCN
W 71-67
+14.5
6
@
NICH
L 67-74
−8.5
8
@
NOLA
L 83-84
−2.5
15
@
TCU
L 65-69
+15.5
21
vs
NAU
W 90-66
+17.5
30
vs
SELA
W 79-70
+2.5
3
vs
HCU
W 73-56
+10.5
5
@
RGV
L 67-80
−11.5
10
@
LAM
L 51-63
−10.5
12
@
SFA
L 46-56
−2.5
17
vs
NWST
W 76-74
−6.5
19
vs
ETAM
L 58-80
−28.5
24
vs
AMCC
L 71-79
−9.5
27
@
HCU
L 75-81
−7.5
31
vs
RGV
L 93-106
−11.5
2
@
AMCC
W 71-69
+6.5
7
@
MCN
L 64-81
−0.5
9
@
SELA
L 62-74
−10.5
14
vs
NICH
L 83-91
−10.5
16
vs
NOLA
L 64-78
−16.5
21
@
ETAM
W 82-73
+12.5
23
@
NWST
L 49-54
−3.5
28
vs
LAM
W 72-60
+10.5
2
vs
SFA
L 68-76
−0.5
covered 10didn’t cover 18avg −2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
CSU
L 64-98
+14.5
16
@
IU
L 61-69
−27.5
20
vs
USI
W 87-81
+22.5
22
vs
HPU
L 80-91
+10.5
1
vs
MCN
W 71-67
−7.5
6
@
NICH
L 67-74
−4.5
8
@
NOLA
L 83-84
+18.5
15
@
TCU
L 65-69
−9.5
21
vs
NAU
W 90-66
+15.5
30
vs
SELA
W 79-70
+13.5
3
vs
HCU
W 73-56
−12.5
5
@
RGV
L 67-80
+0.5
10
@
LAM
L 51-63
−26.5
12
@
SFA
L 46-56
−38.5
17
vs
NWST
W 76-74
+8.5
19
vs
ETAM
L 58-80
−4.5
24
vs
AMCC
L 71-79
+13.5
27
@
HCU
L 75-81
+15.5
31
vs
RGV
L 93-106
+58.5
2
@
AMCC
W 71-69
−0.5
7
@
MCN
L 64-81
−0.5
9
@
SELA
L 62-74
−1.5
14
vs
NICH
L 83-91
+25.5
16
vs
NOLA
L 64-78
−12.5
21
@
ETAM
W 82-73
+9.5
23
@
NWST
L 49-54
−35.5
28
vs
LAM
W 72-60
−6.5
2
vs
SFA
L 68-76
+1.5
over 14under 14avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Texas Tech
34 games played
Straight up
23-11
68% wins
Against the spread
17-17
50% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-19
44% overs · avg −1.7 pts vs the total
Game by game: lines, results and totals
Lines, results and totalsCover margin by game · points beyond the lineTotal margin by game · points over or under the total
| Date | Opp | Result | Line | ATS | Total | O/U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 4 | vs | W 98-60 | -29.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 98-77 | -31.5 | L −10.5 | 156.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 77-81 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 168.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 80-63 | -27.5 | L −10.5 | 165.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 84-83 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 56-86 | +3.5 | L −26.5 | 153.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 82-50 | -29.5 | W +2.5 | 157.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 76-72 | -19.5 | L −15.5 | 152.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 82-58 | -5.5 | W +18.5 | 154.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 86-93 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 101-90 | -25.5 | L −14.5 | 152.5 | O 191 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 82-81 | +9.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 87-57 | -17.5 | W +12.5 | 163.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 102-80 | -12.5 | W +9.5 | 167.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 65-69 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 73-71 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 161.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 88-74 | -17.5 | L −3.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 84-71 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 165.5 | U 155 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 92-73 | -1.5 | W +17.5 | 154.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 90-86 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 80-88 | -5.5 | L −13.5 | 159.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 2 | vs | L 61-64 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 78-44 | -13.5 | W +20.5 | 155.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 78-75 | +8.5 | W +11.5 | 156.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 67-72 | -7.5 | L −12.5 | 156.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 100-72 | -12.5 | W +15.5 | 158.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 80-68 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 82-73 | +10.5 | W +19.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 65-73 | -8.5 | L −16.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 76-82 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 159.5 | U 158 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 53-75 | +7.5 | L −14.5 | 143.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 91-71 | -6.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 65-90 | +1.5 | L −23.5 | 164.5 | U 155 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
LIN
W 98-60
+8.5
7
vs
SHSU
W 98-77
−10.5
11
@
ILL
L 77-81
−0.5
14
vs
MILW
W 80-63
−10.5
20
vs
WAKE
W 84-83
−8.5
21
vs
PUR
L 56-86
−26.5
26
vs
NOLA
W 82-50
+2.5
30
vs
WYO
W 76-72
−15.5
7
vs
LSU
W 82-58
+18.5
13
vs
ARK
L 86-93
−9.5
16
vs
UNCO
W 101-90
−14.5
20
vs
DUKE
W 82-81
+10.5
28
vs
WIN
W 87-57
+12.5
3
vs
OKST
W 102-80
+9.5
6
@
HOU
L 65-69
+3.5
10
@
COLO
W 73-71
−3.5
14
vs
UTAH
W 88-74
−3.5
17
vs
BYU
W 84-71
+10.5
20
@
BAY
W 92-73
+17.5
24
vs
HOU
W 90-86
+5.5
31
@
UCF
L 80-88
−13.5
2
vs
KU
L 61-64
−6.5
8
@
WVU
W 70-63
+2.5
11
vs
COLO
W 78-44
+20.5
14
@
ARIZ
W 78-75
+11.5
17
@
ASU
L 67-72
−12.5
21
vs
KSU
W 100-72
+15.5
24
vs
CIN
W 80-68
+5.5
28
@
ISU
W 82-73
+19.5
3
vs
TCU
L 65-73
−16.5
7
@
BYU
L 76-82
−3.5
12
vs
ISU
L 53-75
−14.5
20
vs
AKR
W 91-71
+13.5
22
vs
ALA
L 65-90
−23.5
covered 17didn’t cover 17avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
LIN
W 98-60
+11.5
7
vs
SHSU
W 98-77
+18.5
11
@
ILL
L 77-81
−10.5
14
vs
MILW
W 80-63
−22.5
20
vs
WAKE
W 84-83
+6.5
21
vs
PUR
L 56-86
−11.5
26
vs
NOLA
W 82-50
−25.5
30
vs
WYO
W 76-72
−4.5
7
vs
LSU
W 82-58
−14.5
13
vs
ARK
L 86-93
+23.5
16
vs
UNCO
W 101-90
+38.5
20
vs
DUKE
W 82-81
+10.5
28
vs
WIN
W 87-57
−19.5
3
vs
OKST
W 102-80
+14.5
6
@
HOU
L 65-69
−8.5
10
@
COLO
W 73-71
−17.5
14
vs
UTAH
W 88-74
+2.5
17
vs
BYU
W 84-71
−10.5
20
@
BAY
W 92-73
+10.5
24
vs
HOU
W 90-86
+34.5
31
@
UCF
L 80-88
+8.5
2
vs
KU
L 61-64
−30.5
8
@
WVU
W 70-63
−6.5
11
vs
COLO
W 78-44
−33.5
14
@
ARIZ
W 78-75
−3.5
17
@
ASU
L 67-72
−17.5
21
vs
KSU
W 100-72
+13.5
24
vs
CIN
W 80-68
+4.5
28
@
ISU
W 82-73
+9.5
3
vs
TCU
L 65-73
−9.5
7
@
BYU
L 76-82
−1.5
12
vs
ISU
L 53-75
−15.5
20
vs
AKR
W 91-71
+7.5
22
vs
ALA
L 65-90
−9.5
over 15under 19avg −1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Texas Tech has the better starters
Position by position: Incarnate Word 0, Texas Tech 3, even 2
Incarnate WordBetterTexas Tech
G I. Habib14.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 36
→TTUBig
G C. Davis TR20.1 pts · 3.5 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 91
G M. Conner TR7.8 pts · 3.4 reb · 6.2 ast
Score 19
→TTUBig
G D. Atwell13.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 88
G B. McCreesh TR7.4 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 40
→TTUBig
G D. Gibbs-Lawhorn TR20.7 pts · 3.1 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 95
F D. Goodwin TR4.3 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. Toppin21.8 pts · 10.8 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 100
F G. Erheriene TR0.8 pts · 0.7 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F D. Williams TR14 pts · 4.6 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 76
Incarnate WordBetterTexas Tech
UIW offense291st of 366 · -9.0
→TTUBig
TTU defense12th of 366 · +6.6
UIW defense280th of 366 · -7.0
→TTUBig
TTU offense12th of 366 · +9.9
Backcourt-5.7 · 3 players
→TTUBig
Backcourt+10.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.2 · 2 players
→TTUBig
Frontcourt+10.8 · 2 players
Bench-0.1 · 2 players
→TTUBig
Bench+7.2 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestUIW betterTTU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
I. Habib33 minM. Conner30 min · TRB. McCreesh28 min · TRD. Barbee2 minJ. ThomasNewD. CasonNew
Forwards
D. Goodwin14 min · TRG. Erheriene5 min · TRK. Spencer2 min · TRD. EmetuNewK. IoaneNewT. CollinsNew
Centers
C. PareNew
Guards
C. Davis39 min · TRD. Atwell35 minD. Gibbs-Lawhorn35 min · TRD. Dennis24 min · TRD. SpearNewA. BarrettNew
Forwards
J. Toppin35 minD. Williams30 min · TRJ. Stillwell28 min · TRJ. Moseley14 minM. Akuentok6 minL. HooverNew
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Matchup stats
2025-26 · rank among 365 teams
Scoring
Points per game
Points per possession
Pace (possessions)
Shooting
Effective FG%
3-point %
3-point attempt rate
Free throw rate
Possessions
Turnover rate
Offensive rebound rate
Assists per game
Defense
Points allowed
Points allowed per possession
Opponent effective FG%
Opponent 3-point %
Turnovers forced
Defensive rebound rate
Steals per game
Blocks per game
| Scoring | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.4 #275 | Points per game | 80.3 #62 |
| 1.07 #206 | Points per possession | 1.18 #35 |
| 65.4 #335 | Pace (possessions) | 68.2 #222 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.2 #228 | Effective FG% | 56.1 #21 |
| 36.1 #54 | 3-point % | 39.1 #4 |
| 39.1 #190 | 3-point attempt rate | 47.6 #29 |
| 34.0 #210 | Free throw rate | 27.7 #347 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #206 | Turnover rate | 15.8 #123 |
| 32.1 #120 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.3 #82 |
| 10.8 #342 | Assists per game | 15.7 #59 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.0 #189 | Points allowed | 73.1 #134 |
| 1.15 #331 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #138 |
| 54.5 #314 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.7 #86 |
| 34.4 #214 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.1 #67 |
| 15.8 #233 | Turnovers forced | 14.8 #305 |
| 68.0 #260 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.4 #186 |
| 5.1 #329 | Steals per game | 6.0 #239 |
| 2.4 #310 | Blocks per game | 3.8 #103 |
Incarnate Word
9-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs SF Austin68–76
- Wvs Lamar72–60
- L@ N'Western St49–54
- W@ East Texas A&M82–73
- Lvs LSU N Orleans64–78
A week or more of rest.
Texas Tech
23-11 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Alabama65–90
- Wvs Akron91–71
- Lvs Iowa State53–75
- L@ BYU76–82
- Lvs TCU65–73
A week or more of rest.